Question IX: Whether it is lawful to kill oneself

§ D. Thom. quaest. 64. art 5.

The killer of himself is proclaimed unjust by D. Bonaventura in 3. dist. 37. dub. 5. litt. and D. Thom. here; all follow them, as Farinac. reports, Tom. 4. quaest. 128., Fagundez in quintum praeceptum decal. cap. 11.

It is PROVED by the Saintly Doctors from the fifth precept, Non occides, by which precept every unjust killing of a man is prohibited; but none is more unjust than against oneself; because, as D. Bonavent. says, in 3. dist. 29. quaest. 3., Fundamento I., Qui sibi nequam est, cui alii bonus erit? Ecclesiastici 14.

But the UNHAPPY man who kills himself, that he may obtain rest, is destined to eternal punishments without rest, as the Seraphic Doctor says, in 3. dist. 28. dub. 2.; indeed he is deprived of the rest of burial, as was defined in the Council of Braga, cap. 34., and it is related in cap. Placuit, dist. 23. quaest. 5.: Placuit, ut qui sibi ipsis, aut per ferrum, aut per venenum, aut per praecipitium, aut suspendium, aut quolibet modo, violentam inferunt mortem, nulla pro eis in oblatione commemoratio fiat; neque cum Psalmis ad sepulturam cadavera eorum deducantur.

I ADD, however; for this punishment to be incurred it is required that he involve himself in full judgment; For if he does it in a frenzy, indeed pious Mother Church has compassion on him. But if there is doubt, he is not to be deprived of Ecclesiastical Sepulture, but is to be conducted with lesser ceremony; for instance with one or two Priests accompanying. So very many, whom Farinac. follows, loco cit. num. 16.

By civil law, the one who kills himself, or attempts to kill himself, even if death does not follow, is infamous, Lex si aliquid, § finali, ff. de poenis, and Lex, omne delictum, §. si se vulnerauerit, ff. de re militari, where it speaks of honorary soldiers.

The Doctors commonly assert, with D. Bonaventure, that the one who kills himself sins mortally against Justice toward God, and toward the Republic, of which he is a member; and against Charity toward himself, as the Saintly Doctor teaches in the places to be cited and alleged, D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 64. art. 5. ad 1., Sotus L. 4. de Iust. quaest. 2. art. 3., Couar. lib. 4. var. cap. 2., Sayrus lib. 7. cap. 17., Petrus Navar. lib. 2. de restitut. cap. 3. num. 54., Fagundez in quintum Praeceptum decalogi, L. 5. cap. 11. num. 5.

It is not, however, properly against justice toward the Republic, because it is not perfectly mistress of his own life, as Fagundez notes, cont. Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 62. Tract. de dominio vitae, concl. 1., but against God, the supreme Lord, as Plato argues in Phaedone.

There arises a new question, which Lessius first hinted at, Tom. 1. de Iust. Lib. 2. cap. 9. dub. 6. num. 32., and Fagundez discusses, num. 6.: whether the Commander of a fleet of Miopari, when otherwise he cannot escape the hands of the Barbarians, can licitly send fire into the sulphurous powder and set the ship ablaze, not in order to kill himself and others, but lest that ship come into the hands of the enemy, lest they become more insolent and stronger because of it.

The FIRST opinion is affirmative, which Lessius follows, and Fagundez applauds: others subscribe, who allege that the defenders of the fatherland, unable otherwise to sustain death, can undertake some deed, even if they are to be killed because of it. So Victoria relect. de homicid. ad ult., Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 62. tract. 1. de dominio vitae, concl. 1. quaest. 64. art. 1., Valentia Tom. 3. disput. 5. quaest. 8. puncto 2., Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 65.; and they cite the examples of Samson, Iudv 16., of Eleazar primo, Machab. 9., of Raziz 2. Machab. 14., and of other Heroes.

The SECOND opinion is negative. So D. Thom. in the place cited, whom they commonly follow, who in the deed of Samson take refuge in a singular impulse of God. So D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 32. art. 2. quaest. 1.

It is PROVED by the Saintly Doctor in the chapter on the sixth precept of the Decalogue from the divine precept: Non occides. But what they say, that this does not intend one to kill oneself, is frivolous; For he efficiently brings about his own death, by sending in a cause naturally efficacious.

To the example of Samson D. Bonaventure answers that he did it, moved by God, who is the lord of life; for Scripture says: Irruit super eum spiritus Domini, as Tostatus observes, in 16. Iudic. quaest. 54., citing D. Augustine primo, de civit. Dei, cap. 20., and he says the same in lib. contra secundam epistolam Gaudensii.

But that he could have done it without the impulse of God, as Sayrus Lib. 7. cap. 9. num. 9., Lessius loco cit., Caietanus Iud. 16., Lopez cap. 65. Instruct. say, is not proved; otherwise God would have sent in His Spirit in vain.

I say the SAME of Eleazar, whom D. Ambrose praises, Lib. primo, offic. cap. 40.

I assert entirely the SAME of Razia, who stabbed himself and threw himself headlong from a height, lest he fall into the power of the Barbarians. For so Scripture says: Eligens nobiliter potius mori, quam subditus fieri peccatoribus. But the Greek text is rendered thus: Generose volens mori potius, quam peccatoribus subditum fieri, et propria nobilitate indigne contumeliam pati.

Wherefore the Holy Spirit praises him for this. Nor do some rightly say that he is so related; but that, deceived by the opinion of his own nobility, he mortally sinned; among whom is also D. Thom. in the place cited, ad 5., and others in Fagundez num. 8., for Scripture acknowledges this act as generous. Therefore Lyra defends him on the text, and Victoria at the end.